Expanding the concept of Artist-Medium-Instrument (Sukenick, Acconci, Antin, Spooky, Amerika, etc.) so that it traces a parallel and possibly complementary philosophical lineage through Bergson, Whitehead, Deleuze, Ruyer, Mackay, Massumi, Shaviro, Hansen, and others focusing on the body as the predominant element to affectively filter the Artist-Medium-Instrument experience ("Are you experienced?").

In this scenario, the Artist-Medium-Instrument-Body model looks at the body's central nervous system and its relationship to

In other words, test-driving philosophical investigations into the implications of this reconfigured Bergsonist vocation of the artist as well as quick consideration of the convergence of HD with VR and the potential of a "digitally expanded cinematic image." But what about other, more easily accessible works of digitally manipulated art?

In the end, who really cares about this potential HD-VR cinema? I have a "feeling" that the reason we are not "feeling it" is because it lacks narrative sensibility and has hit a creative dead zone that relies too much on the technology but that looks really good on paper and has the capacity to capitalize on its outcomes-dependent research model so that it can self-perpetuate its government/corporate sponsored cash flow pipeline instead of add to the history of life-changing art experience that, to paraphrase Rimbaud, "deranges the senses" ...